Now, this will sounds weird or it may be just a stupid hoax, but I've browsed the internet and all seem to be real.
Hufu is a soy based product which tastes like...human flesh! It was invented for people interested in the availability of human flesh. Am I missing the point here?
There's a website where you can order their products, eathufu.com, where a found funny quotes such as "We also found that HufuTM is a great product for cannibals who want to quit".You guys take a look for yourselves...

This is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard -- mock human flesh meat. That's messed up to say the least. This cannot be legitimate and I am so annoyed by the whole thing that I am not even going to read the link.

Editted to clean up the language.

Last edited by compassionategirl on Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the concept of mock human meat in an otherwise respected vegetarian magazine does NOTHING to help animals or the ar movement. I think it will just reinforce all the MISperceptions of animal rights people being freaks, radicals, extremists, etc. etc., and thereby ultimately undermine the activism in this area.

While I can see the speciesm involved in my own reaction of being appauled by faux human meat but yet not appauled by faux animal meat, the general public -- even those new to animal rights -- this whole concept of Hufu will probably push people AWAY from animal rights people, not have the effect of encouraging them stand in solidarity with the ar movement.

I am not saying that EVERYBODY will have that reaction, but I think it is safe to say that many will.

So the question will it be effective for the animals? My answer is I dont know.

I do consume faux meats like veggie burgers, "fake" ribs, fake "chicken strips", etc. if that makes me a speciest, then so be it. I do the best that I can for animals, and I beleive that the life of a lamb, for example, is no less precious than the life of a human.

Those fake meats weird me out. If it's too close to the real thing I'm like "whoa" and then feel strange inside. Like the Stonewall's Jerquee - I can eat a few of them but the one with the little pig on it that's called "cajun bacon" flavor... I can't eat that one. Way to creepy with the pig right on it. I could do burgers cuz they're not specifically animal, or sausage, or the jerquee. But like ribs would twist up my head. Anything that's too close to animal.

It's probably one of those old tricks I learned when I was omnivorous, disassociate the meat name from the animal name. Like a burger is a burger and pepperoni is pepperoni but lamb... well that's lamb.

It is real, they had the guy who is marketing it on The Daily Show on Comedy Central.

Big deal, tofu marketed as faux human flesh. It probably tastes the same as tofu-based chicken or pork products. It is just a gimmick, and I sincerely doubt anyone is eating it as regular sustenance. During the interview I saw on the show, I don't recall them mentioning vegetarians at all, it is a fake meat, and is made out of tofu. It isn't like it is marketed toward vegetarians (from what I have seen, anyway), though I do think magazines like Herbavore doing an article on it is a bad choice.

tylerm wrote: It is real, they had the guy who is marketing it on The Daily Show on Comedy Central.

Big deal, tofu marketed as faux human flesh. It probably tastes the same as tofu-based chicken or pork products. It is just a gimmick, and I sincerely doubt anyone is eating it as regular sustenance. During the interview I saw on the show, I don't recall them mentioning vegetarians at all, it is a fake meat, and is made out of tofu. It isn't like it is marketed toward vegetarians (from what I have seen, anyway), though I do think magazines like Herbavore doing an article on it is a bad choice.

Well I am glad to hear that the makers of this are not associating themselves with the animal rights movement -- the last thing we need is another reason for people to think we are radical freaks that "love animals and hate people". We are misunderstood enough.

Although i fail to see what the POINT of this is even if it iss just a gimmick? What is the person responsible for this gimmick hoping to achieve? Just to sell the product and make money. I dunno, I just dont see anything good that could come out of "hufu" and I worry about the impact it may have on the ar cause. Even if the makers of this dont even mention the phrase "animal rights" or "vegans", I can just see how this would be interpretted by most of the general meat eating population. In short, when you market faux meats -- like Yves does -- this does help animals. We cannot deny this. It allows us to say "Go vegan. Look, there are so many yummy alternatives to dead animals like all these faux deli slicces, etc." And when meat eaters see all these alternatives, this certainly facilitates or encourages them giving up "real dead animals". And that, in the end, DOES help animals b/c less of them are being eaten because people are eating faux hot dogs instead of real hot dogs for example. So in short, putting the speciesm aside, the existence of faux meats helps animals by facilitating veganism in the above way. But what purpose is to be served by marketing faux human meat? I think that is what I am having trouble with, and that is why I am appaulled by one and not so much with the other.

I agree with you Tyler -- I think it is a BAD idea for respectable veggie magazines do show an interest in this by writing about it.

It is funny, I agree, but when you think of the possible social implications it just seems stupid. The fact that something like hufu can negatively affect animal rights is pretty lame. The guy who markets it was described in the interview I saw as a 'business student', he is a middle aged guy who plans on getting into investment banking after school. I think this hufu thing was for publicity or just for kicks, not like he plans to make real money off of it.

tylerm wrote: but when you think of the possible social implications it just seems stupid. The fact that something like hufu can negatively affect animal rights is pretty lame. .

Disagree. Remember that I am talking about meat eating idiots -- those who want another reason to brand us as extremist radical freaks. This can potentially give them one. You said Tyler that no where in the interview was there mentioned vegans and vegetarians. Well, I did end up skimming the site -- first of all, this is described as a vegetarian product. An association is made in other words right there. Secondly, the site claims that "market research seems to suggest that a segment of the public, including vegans and vegetarians, seem interested in this product" or something like that.

If we were talking about people that can see this for what it really is, then I would not be so concerned. But I am really talking about reaction by "lame" people with "lame" intelligence/consciousness.

And, even if I am overestimating the potential effects of "hufu", i still think it is a bad idea all around and certainly a bad idea for any ar mag or organization to even touch it.

I still dont even know if this is for real or not. Seems to ridiculous to be for real, then again, what the hell do I know in my naive little world.

compassionate girl, I think you misunderstood me, perhaps I didn't choose the right words. I think that hufu CAN negatively impact veganism, and I think that that is lame! As in it really sucks that such a stupid product can have a negative impact on veganism.

Also, I never looked at the site and wasn't referring to that, but the interview I saw on the Daily Show of hufu's creator had no mention of vegetarians or vegans.

tylerm wrote:compassionate girl, I think you misunderstood me, perhaps I didn't choose the right words. I think that hufu CAN negatively impact veganism, and I think that that is lame! As in it really sucks that such a stupid product can have a negative impact on veganism.

Oh okay sorry -- yes I did misunderstand you then. And I entirely agree with what you said above -- people are pathetic.